I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.

Rick Perry Needn't Sweat His Global Warming Skepticism

Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen is concerned that “Climate Change May Be Ruin of Perry Campaign.” Far less clear was whether he regards that imminent ruination to be a bad thing, or rather, a cause for celebration. There are excellent reasons to suspect the latter.

Cohen doesn’t hold a very high opinion of the Texas governor, of anyone who doesn’t buy into the notion of a looming man-made global warming disaster, or of Republicans. Referring to Perry in an Aug. 22 Washington Post article, he opined “It’s not his thinking I fear, it’s the lack of any at all.”

Cohen observed that “[Perry] occupies the cultural and intellectually empty heartland of the Republican party.” The article scorned Perry for publicly stating that he stood with an increasing number of scientists who have challenged the existence of man-made global warming threats, commenting “…whoever they (italics noted) might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy’s skeleton rattled a bit.” His reference to McCarthy went on to elaborate that “The late and hardly lamented demagogue pioneered the use of the concocted statistic” in suggesting that communists were literally everywhere. He further amplified “There were some, of course, just as there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few – about 2% of climate researchers – could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2% of scientists think they are).”

This would require a pretty big phone booth, and actually, there really are many of those “global warming skeptics” still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

Since 2007 more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement concerning two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views, with responses to about half of those areas skewing on the “skeptic” side and no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convention, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 83% believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association. Another survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming.

A literature review of 928 scientific papers published on “global climate change” between 2004 and 2007 that appeared in a 2008 issue of Environment & Energy, reported that 31 (6%) of 591 explicitly or implicitly rejected the idea of consensus that more than half of warming over the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. Fewer than half endorsed consensus, and only 7% did so explicitly.

Cohen’s statement that 97% of all climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming can be attributed to a very brief online survey of “over 3,000 Earth scientists” published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009 that asked “do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Not addressed was which human activities any affirmative answer would be linked to, such as: CO2 emissions, and land use changes including agriculture, urbanization and deforestation. Nor was it clear what the question meant by “significant contributing factors” — whether it was intended to mean that they were statistically measurable, catastrophic, or quite plausibly, even desirable.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

“84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public.”

Dear Larry, I can see from your credentials that you are an engineer, not a scientist. Even an engineer should be aware of how ridiculous the “It’s just a theory” response to “Do you believe in evolution” is. Gravity is also “just a theory”. Any person who does not accept evolution is no scientist regardless of what degrees he’s earned or where he got them. Perhaps this truth could also be applied to the climate change skeptics. When I was in school back in the ’60′s the greenhouse effect was not controversial at all or the fact that carbon dioxide (and methane) cause it. We also know that the vastly increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere currently have been produced by our industrialized society. Perhaps you could find one (just one) of those Nobel laureats Michelle Bachman talks about too!

You cite 83% of Broadcast meterologists, many of whom have no fundamental understanding of climate? Really? Most of these guys do not make the study of climate their avocation, they are more concerned with making sure they don’t get fired for predicting rain at the wrong time. Broadcast meteorologists to support your point? People whose main training is to learn interactive graphics programs and how to act in front of a green screen? (I’ve worked in the business for more than 30 years, believe me, research scientists they are not. As an example Steve Pechner, a broadcast meteorologist predicted more California drought in 1978. A local climatology professor, Orman Granger, predicted that rainfall would be over normal and was correct almost to the inch. )

I’m going to ignore what adults think in a poll because quite frankly a lot of adults don’t believe in evolution or staying away from deep fried butter sticks. All it reflects is the success of corporate propoganda.

You say: 6% of 591 explicitly or implicitly rejected the idea of consensus that more than half of warming over the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic? 7% did so explicitly. I like that Bell. Nice semi-omission of the implicitly accepted in the latter number because the numbers did not agree with your beliefs? What would be the number if it was the endorsed explicitly AND implicitly? Deciphering your prose nearly half accept antrhopogenic global warming (AGW) implicitly and explicitly.

So let us coompare apples to apples. Explicitly plus implicitly (your established stndard) would probably make that more than 50% accept AGW, correct? 50% implicitly and explicitly supporting AGW towers over 6% denying AGW. That’s a large majority that you tried to explicitly mislead your audience about.

Well what do you expect? Mr. Bell is not a scientist per se but an architect with at least a few engineering courses under his belt as an undergrad, along with his Master of Fine Arts from the University of Illinois. Guess he has not had much exposure to econometrics, climate modelling and climatology. Don’t get me wrong, I like the real work he is doing in SpaceHab but his columns on climate are calumnious.

I’m interested that you haven’t responded to the criticisms that the [31,000] signatures were fraudulent or why people wanting to mock the whole process signed as cartoon characters. I’m also amazed that, under those circumstances, they were able to categorize by specialty what kind of scientists these fictional characters belonged to. Of course, if I had been working for the survey, and someone signed as “Chicken Little”, I would have no choice but to classify that person as an eminent authority on atmospheric sciences. Thank you again for your careful attention, Geoff